On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 01:31:24AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 12:53:13PM +0000, Clément Prévost wrote: > > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:50 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > I think it's a good idea to run a force-parallel run on some buildfarm > > > members. But I'm rather convinced that the core tests run by all animals > > > need some minimal coverage of parallel queries. Both because otherwise > > > it'll be hard to get some coverage of unusual platforms, and because > > > it's imo something rather relevant to test during development. > > > > > Good point. > > > > After some experiments, I found out that, for my setup (9b7bfc3a88ef7b), a > > parallel seq scan is used given both parallel_setup_cost > > and parallel_tuple_cost are set to 0 and given that the table is at least 3 > > times as large as the biggest test table tenk1. > > > > The attached patch is a regression test using this method that is > > reasonably small and fast to run. I also hid the workers count from the > > explain output when costs are disabled as suggested by Tom Lane and Robert > > Haas on this same thread ( > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmobBQS4ss3+CwoZOKgbsBqKfRndwc=hlialaep5axqc...@mail.gmail.com > > ). > > > > Testing under these conditions does not test the planner job at all but at > > least some parallel code can be run on the build farm and the test suite > > gets 2643 more lines and 188 more function covered. > > > > I don't know however if this test will be reliable on other platforms, some > > more feedback is needed here. > > [This is a generic notification.] > > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item. Robert, > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open > item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a > 9.6 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on > open item ownership[1] and send a status update within 72 hours of this > message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may > discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed > well in advance of shipping 9.6rc1. Consequently, I will appreciate your > efforts toward speedy resolution. Thanks. > > [1] > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.ga447...@tornado.leadboat.com
I enjoy reviewing automated test patches, so I persuaded Robert to transfer ownership of this open item to me. I will update this thread no later than 2016-06-07 09:00 UTC. There is an 85% chance I will have reviewed the proposed patch by then. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers